Background
Dr. Robert Bruce Donoway, a surgical oncologist, had his medical staff privileges suspended and then revoked at Aventura Hospital in Miami-Dade County following a peer review investigation. The hospital investigated the plaintiff’s treatment of patients, conducted a peer review process, and ultimately revoked his privileges, preventing him from performing surgeries at the facility.
Dr. Donoway filed suit in Broward County Circuit Court—where his medical practice is located—seeking injunctive relief to prevent the hospital from reporting the suspension or revocation, declaratory relief regarding the hospital’s bylaws and credentials policy, and damages for breach of contract, constructive fraud, and common law fraud. The defendants moved to transfer the case to Miami-Dade County, where Aventura Hospital is located. The circuit court denied the motion to transfer, and the defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth DCA reversed the circuit court’s denial of the transfer motion and remanded with instructions to transfer the case to Miami-Dade County. The court held that all tort claims accrued in Miami-Dade County, where the cause of action arose, making that county the proper venue under Florida Statutes § 47.011.
The court applied the rule that a tort claim accrues “where the last event necessary to make the defendant liable for the tort took place,” or alternatively, “in the county where the plaintiff first suffers injury.” Here, all the alleged tortious conduct—the hospital’s investigation of the plaintiff’s treatment, the peer review process, and the revocation of his privileges—occurred exclusively at Aventura Hospital in Miami-Dade County. The fact that the plaintiff suffered secondary economic injuries in Broward County (lost income, lost patients, damage to his practice) was immaterial to the venue analysis.
The hospital’s CEO submitted an affidavit confirming that every aspect of the peer review process—initiation, investigation, decisions, and hearing—occurred solely at the Miami-Dade County hospital. The plaintiff submitted no evidence to refute this, and the court found no facts that would support Broward County as the proper venue.
Key Takeaways
- Venue for tort claims is determined by where the tortious conduct occurred and completed, not where the plaintiff subsequently suffered economic harm.
- In hospital credentialing and peer review disputes, venue lies in the county where the hospital is located, not where the physician’s practice is based.
- Secondary economic injuries to a business located in a different county do not establish venue in that county when the underlying tortious conduct occurred elsewhere.
Why It Matters
This decision has significant implications for physicians and medical professionals challenging hospital peer review decisions and credentialing actions. It establishes that litigation will proceed in the county where the hospital is located, not necessarily where the physician practices. Hospitals in one jurisdiction will have venue advantages when defending credentialing disputes regardless of where the affected physician’s practice is situated.
The ruling also clarifies the accrual point for tort claims arising from hospital peer review: the tortious conduct is complete when the hospital completes its investigation and renders its decision—not when the physician experiences downstream economic losses. This principle extends beyond the healthcare context and affects how courts analyze venue in any tort claim involving geographically separated conduct and injury.